Vikas Vs. Harjit Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - 1487-cii of 1993 in this court and the court vide its order dated 20.5.1993, after issuing notices to the claimant as well as to the insurance company, framed the following additional issues: 9. for the reasons stated above, this appeal as well as cross objections filed by the claimant are allowed in the manner indicated above.amarjeet chaudhary, j.1. this order of mine will dispose of f.a.o. no. 297 of 1993 filed by vikas, owner of the car on whom the liability to pay compensation has been fastened. cross objection no. 71-cii of 1994 filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation and cross objections no. 41-cii of 1996 filed by the insurance company for dismissal of the appeal.2. in brief, the case of the appellant is that he could not prove the insurance policy and driving licence which were on the record of criminal case as no specific issue in this regard was framed by the motor accident claims tribunal, patiala.3. the appellant filed civil misc. application no. 1487-cii of 1993 in this court and the court vide its order dated 20.5.1993, after issuing notices to the claimant as well as to the insurance company, framed the following additional issues:-1) whether the vehicle in question was covered under a valid insurance policy on the date of accident?2) whether the person driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident possessed a valid driving licence?the court directed the motor accident claims tribunal, patiala, which had given the award in the first instance, to afford reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to submit a report on the above noted issues within three months from the date of the order. parties through their counsel were directed to appear before the tribunal on 26.5.1993 and the case was adjourned to 6.9.1993 to await the report of the tribunal.4. the record alongwith report of the tribunal was received. the tribunal afforded opportunities to the parties to produce the evidence. sh. ashok mathur, advocate who was representing the insurance company was called for and opportunities were granted to him to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the owner of the car i.e. to show that the driving licence or the registration certificate and the insurance policy were not genuine. however, learned counsel for the insurance company in spite of opportunities, could not produce any evidence and could not show any circumstance lending suspicion to the genuineness of driving licence, exh. r-1, registration certificate and insurance policy, exh. r-3. the tribunal had returned a finding that the insurance policy, copy exh. r-2 was issued on 20.6.1989 and was valid up to 20.6.1990. this cover note was for car no. pcs-8 and in the name of vikas kumar son of kewal krishan, mehak restaurant; chandigarh. additional issue no.1 was decided in favour of owner of the car. on the second issue, the tribunal also recorded a finding that vikas at the time of accident, was holding a valid driving licence. copy of the same was produced before the tribunal as exh. r-1 which was valid from 25.11.1985 to 24.11.1993.5. since the tribunal had returned a categoric finding that the owner of car no. pcs-8 was holding a valid driving licence and the vehicle was fully insured with the insurance company, this court is of the view that liability to pay compensation would be that of the insurance company. as such, the finding of the tribunal on issue no.2, which was originally framed by it, is set aside.6. in the cross objections filed by the claimant, it has been stated that the claimant received crushed injuries on the right leg and as a result thereof the same was amputated from below the knee cap and he suffered permanent disabilitybut the compensation awarded to him on account of amputation of right leg below the knee cap, disability and pain and suffering does not commensurate with the injuries.7. i have heard learned counsel for the claimant and perused the paper book. i am of the view that the compensation awarded does not commensurate with the injuries suffered by harjit singh claimant. the clamant, at the time of accident, was a young boy of 24 years and has been rendered crippled for whole of his life. his movements have been totally restricted due to amputation of his right limb of the body. he has also been deprived to led a normal life. he has to get fitted artificial limb which will require replacement also from time to time.8. in view of the above discussion, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of rs. 1,25,000/- (rupees one lac and twenty five thousands) as compensation in lump sum alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum payable by insurance company, respondent no.2 from the date of filing claim petition till payment. the amount of rs. 90,000/- awarded to the claimant as compensation shall be adjusted against the amount of compensation awarded by this court.9. for the reasons stated above, this appeal as well as cross objections filed by the claimant are allowed in the manner indicated above. cross objections filed by the insurance company are dismissed being devoid of any merit. however, there will be no order as to costs.